Dean is out?

Dean won the World Series and gets canned?

Weird innit? Anyway Harold Ford, Jr.is like to the right of Barry Goldwater, will the new dems have a platform of
Jesus is just alright with me.
Abortion is a mortal sin.
What this nation needs is more guns on the street.
Bizarro world.

If the Dems become Republicans, I will go all Green.

Harold Ford is replacing Howard Dean?

edgarblythe, I get the feeling the Dems actually think they won rather than the Bushies lost. They were the only alternative. The damn 2 party system aint nothing more than good cop bad cop BS. Harold Ford is what dyslexia said and Howard Dean not far behind him imo.

The Dems won big, the progressive base had a big part in it, James Carville is an irrelevant fool, and Howard Dean is staying.

You can take all of these to the bank.

I think it is very possible that Dean will leave the chairmanship. But not because anybody asked him to. Because he wants to-in order to run for President.

And why shouldn't he?

howard dean will be speaking to the canadian liberal party members at their upcoming convention !
got quite a bit of attention on canadian news !
hbg

This is not a bad idea. Ford is an exceptional fellow. Dean's is, without adequate reason, a magnet for effective black PR.

Someone last night, perhaps Mark shields on PBS, suggested that a "winner" in this last election has been a Clintonian Dem party (centrist, triangulated). It's a perceptive observation, I think.

It is hard not to conlude that the nation has moved to the right, certainly since the sixties. That's not my preference, but it seems a reality. If it is so, then it follows that the far right could get really far right, which is precisely the way I understand the period since Reagan and acutely the last six years.

You have to play the game on the field where you find yourself.

I have have been making this argument consistantly, but this argument is appropriate here.

Centrism is not a winning strategy.

The Democrats targeted Seven seats in the Senate. Ford was the most conservative of the group of Democrats with real chances of winning. It is significant that Ford was the only one of these who lost. Yes, I accept that in Connecticut the liberal Democrat one to the Conservative "Democrat" but I think this was an exception.

But, let's talk about the Republicans. They swept into power in 1994 and (with the exception of the Clinton presidency) have been the dominant party since then.

The Republicans did not sweep into power by being the centrist party. They identified core groups of voters-- namely Evangelical Christians and Fiscal Conservatives, and they figured out how to make a coalition. Then they agreed on a set of values and pretty much stuck to these values throughout. The most vocal and powerful Republicans are Pro-Life, against gun control, want to cut taxes,

The Repubican often have taken positions that are not in the Center (i.e. not supported by the majority of Americans). They win because they are consistant.

The Republicans win by playing to their base, the group of core voters who are solid in their support, turn out for elections. This groups of voters then expects the Republicans to come through for them.

The Democrats need to do the same thing. They need to figure out the core groups of voters they are going to represent. Then they need to establish a core set of values that they will consistantly stand for.

Voters in the middle are wishy-washy. Middle voters say they want people in the middle, but then they vote for Bush in record numbers. John Kerry was as centrist a candidate as you could possibly get, running against Bush who by every indication is considerably to the Right of the average American on most every issue.

The winning party is the one that puts together a core of devoted consituents with compatible values who will not only consistantly vote, but will work and contribute.

The Democrats have Minority voters. The Democrats have people who believe in homosexual rights. The Democrats have the anti-war movement. The Democrats have civil rights.

These groups have compatible needs, and all of them need a party that will stand up for them. All of these groups have the passionate people who will be motivated to vote and work and give.

The people at the Center are idiots. They are the peole who, without strong values of their own, are swayed by the 30 second slimey commericials. You aren't going to lose the Center by having strong articulated values that you stand behind.

On the other, it can be argued that the Republicans lost this election because they are not in the center. That they lost because they were consistent - "stay the course" and all...

You are identifying everyone who does not agree with your particular set of ideas - the ones you call "progressive" - but still votes Democrat for a whole number of reasons "Centrist". You're basically calling on everyone to support your particular set of ideas in order for the Democrats to win future elections, because not doing so is pandering to the right, is centrist, is not a winning strategy.

You seem to be ignoring that the Dems, in the run-up to this election, were specifically not limiting their themselves to targeting cliché Dem demographics/groups/etc.

You are getting what I am saying a little wrong.

People with brains vote (and work, and give money) for issues. The people that annoy me are those that don't want the Democrats to take a stand on any issue. I also have no respect for the "middle voter" who doesn't have the intelligence or engery to care about any issues.

If someone hates abortions but wants to enter a homosexual union... This is not my definition of "Centrist". Unfortunately this person doesn't fair well in a two party system and will probably have to make a choice... but that's life and I can't imagine a way to fix the system to help this person.

Politics is about building coalitions. The number of people with a personal interest in Gay Marriage rights (for example) is pretty small, as is the number of people who care about an undocumented immigrant. These issues have much more of a political voice when the members of these two minorities work together.

But, I am curious about what you are saying. There are two options for a political system with parties...

1) Parties have a general position (with some exceptions) on important issues.
2) Parties don't take positions on important issues.

There is a significant (not a majority but significant) number of people who feel strongtly that Homosexuals should have equal marriage rights. If both parties take the SAME position on this issue... it means that a significant proportion of the country will have very little poltical voice for their issue.

There are a lot of people, on the left side of the country who are not being represented. I say let the Republicans have the white Evangelicals and the Gun nuts.

The Democrats need to take solid stands on important issues.

If the Democrats can solidify their hold on the Black Vote and the Hispanic Vote and the Homosexual Vote and the Pro-Choice vote and the Anti-War vote... Do you get the idea? You can get a majority pretty quick in most places with this (although you might still lose Tennesee).

But a political coalition needs to be a give and take thing. To get a solid hold on a voting group, you need to champion their issues and give them political victories. The Republicans have been very good at this in the past decades and the Democrats haven't.

As far as the people in the middle with no strong opinions... well that is what television 30 second spots were invented for. When the republicans come on and say "They want to destroy marriage" the Democrats should have a strong responsed based on their consistant values. Instead of hiding from the issue, they should stand up and say "We want to defend marriage for all".

It is very difficult to win a war of issues if you are afraid to take a stand on values.

Re: Dean is out?


Dys, if you mean Howard Dean, I think he's the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party in a long time. His 50 state campaign won the election for the Dems.

I liked Howard Dean in the 2004 election, but he was too honest and blunt for the spin doctors.

BBB

BBB

Re: Dean is out?


Do you think you folks will be able to convince him to run again in 2008?


Please?

Tico
Tico, nope!

My ideal agenda for winning in 2008 would be John Edwards for president and Barak Obama for vice president. This would give Obama the experience he lacks now so he can run for president in 2012 or 2014.

I would also like to see Hillary Clinton replace Harry Reid as senate majority leader instead of running for president.

BBB

I agree with BBB except I would really like to see Wes Clark/Obama ticket.

Hillary is unelectable to the Prez position, but still needs a position of power to satisfy her thirst..

I wonder; would she run as someone's VP?

Cycloptichorn

ps. Dean isn't going anywhere. As one poster on DKos put it, 'do you really think that the state parties - who benefitted greatly from Dean's 50-state strategy - are going to vote him out? Please!

Cycloptichorn

Cyc


I voted for Wes Clark in the New Mexico primaries in 2004.

I don't think Hillary would run for vice president when her goal is to be the first female president.

BBB

Re: Dean is out?


I am not sure you quite got the message of this last election, Tico.

Dean slew the Republican dragon. The GOP is shown to be the party with the image problem, not the Democrats or Dean.

I don't think you are just going to be able to refer to Dean as being way out there and get any traction anymore, like you could a couple of years ago. The electorate has lost faith in the Republican view of things, and now the Republicans have to prove themselves worthy of the electorate's trust all over again.

ebrown, I understand what you're saying about building coalitions. That's not much an issue for discussion as long as people want to reach one particular goal and have no quarrel with other specific opinions someone else holds.

You're saying that if someone hates abortions but wants to enter a homosexual union, you can't imagine a way to fix the system to help this person.

I disagree - let me explain. For example, here, we have the social democratic party, we have the former communist party, and there is the new leftist party. I can make quite nuanced distinctions when voting, based on my position on the issues.

Arguably not possible with a two-party system. What you still can have are platforms, based on certain positions on the issues, within a party. For example, I could imagine a platform that's pro-choice, and one that is pro-life, both in the Democratic party. Likewise, I could imagine a platform that's pro-environmentalism, and one that is against it, both in the Republican party.

I don't see it as a necessity for everyone on the same general side of the aisle to take the same position on each and every issue, and that should be reflected within the parties, too. (Of course, if a certain position runs too much against the core beliefs of a party, it might become hard for someone or for a groupt to remain in the party.)

However, what you seem to propagate that one party should always take the diametrically opposed position to what the other party says. Well, I disagree with that. There should be room enough for discussion within a party.